thanatopsis_awry

Great post! And your scar really has turned out well, even w/ the minor imperfections as a result of the staple-removal.

I think your situation *is*, for sure, hopeful! Best of luck as you move forward, and I trust you will be making a wise decision that will give you the positive change(s) you are lookin' for!

Interesting thread.....being shaved bald (as opposed to baldING) can certaintly be acceptable, if not preferable. That said, there are a few factors that I've discerned through observation, concerning those who are shaved bald and get deemed "sexy": *they are infrequently caucasian, and if so, are fairly tan *they are in excellent shape, particularly w/ regard to being muscular *they have an acutely masculine aesthetic attractiveness Some of the aforementioned is in our control, and some is not; either way, it isn't a cut n' dry issue and decision, IMO, just like a HT.

On the one hand, the LLLC backers like to take a muddled stance of being proponents -- not because they actually have irrefutable, clear, scientific support, but because they have that which is subjective and difficult to directly dispel...."anecdotal evidence"..... On the other hand, statements like this get made: "laser works by absorbtion of light (photobiostimulation) by the cells and that increases the growth (anagen) phase of the cycle". I wonder if Dr. Mohmand, and others, still believe in this assertion. Either LLLC works or it doesn't; and either you believe it can work or you believe it can't. If you offer LLLC on any level to a patient, as a medical doctor, as part of a treatment plan you simply *must* believe in LLLC and believe that it can and does work for the treatment of MPB and the like. As such, *any* doctor who offers LLLC to patients should absolutely feel compelled -- out of both professional and ethical forces -- to defend their position. If you hawk LLLC you must believe in it; as a doctor encouraging it to patients you simply must have excellent reasoning. In light of the candid presentation of fact and argumentation that Dr. Feller has provided, there are only so many choices of interpretation for such deafening silence of proof, fact, and argumentation.

I had zilch for growth at month3, felt I had zilch for growth at month5; by month6 it was clear I had made big gains, and from then on I've developed into a very strong grower. The point being -- you can't predict with precision how "fast" you'll grow, certaintly not at 3month...or 4....or even 5.....moreover, it is your end-result that is what you will carry with you for pretty much life! Hang tight; keep us updated; try not too sweat your locks too much!

If LLLC docs got KO'd in the main thread, this is akin to them waking up and getting choked out. I wouldn't mind knowing which docs/clinics, exactly, are promoting LLLC.....if they are ethical -- even if they are wrong -- they should have some sort of viable argument, or at least train of thought, to defend themselves on some level....

I can't help but bring this up again because it seems to have been said -- shockingly -- in seriousness....Dr. Mohmand has a belief in "woodoo" and that the "sacrifing of goats" can be a positive remedy for some..... Combined w/ backing LLLC and an ironic reluctance to believe in the benefit of microscopes I'm having an exceedingly hard time believing in the Dr. himself.

I believe it was Reagan who notably stated the proverb: Trust. But verify. Like many arenas, there are those who simply "trust", those who simply "verify", and those who do both. Without question, it is OK for a patient to fall into either category; a doctor, however, has a professional *and* ethical responsibility to fall into the latter-most category.

The future does look fairly bright: the folica/intercytex business, an expansion of donor via FUE/BHT, the evolution of harvesting tecniques to be able to safely extract more grafts....even if but some combination of the aforementioned could expand what has been traditionally viewed as the "average donor" by say 3k that would be a *huge* step forward for many. Even in the very present, the rather recent evolution of FUE and strip harvesting -- when combined in an overall gameplan -- can pay off big and augment an otherwise typical donor-#. Cost and time are at a premium, though; and I suppose even if HM/cloning comes about only of those variables may be helped out.

"As far as sacrificethe goat and chicken are concern, trust me there are people in the world who are doing it and may be one out of 100 might have benifited this is the world of woodoo and its real out there." Ummmm.... ..... "Laser works by absorbtion of light(photobiostimulatuion) by the cells and that increase the growth (anagen) phase of cycle. I guess all other do the same but through different pathways, I am referring to Finastride and Minoxidil.....Please just like me, open your mind and use it, if it works bingo. If it does not then its a loss of so many $$$, a bad investment." I'm assuming Dr. Charles and Co. have a similiar if not identical stance?

Glad your experience went so well; clearly you're extrordinarily supportive and pleased w/ Dr. Charles....has your HT grown in yet -- you mentioned being satisfied w/ the result?

I'd consult w/ Shapiro and Feller; and see what they prescribe, as it may be a bit different (from a cost perspective too).

I think he is saying that for him the average yield is 80-85%; in general, the range can touch upon 50% to upwards of 100% in the right hands w/ the right patient. EDIT -- for FUE, of course; for strip radically higher.

In a vacuum, yes, I would say FUE is best for "short cropped" hair; unfortunately, the reality of the situation is that FUE is not an ideal HT method for most people. The battleplan I detailed above to utilize FUE in a special way to achieve a suitable buzzed look is one way, IMO, that FUE would become more suitable for someone w/ moderate or advanced hairloss to get a HT and be able to keep a very short hairstyle.

Hotdamn! You really are a hairy beast! Hasson's skill combined w/ that many grafts has really given you outstanding density and a near-flawless head of hair.

90% happy and satisfied LLLC patients? 15% improvement from LLLC alone? The fact that we can't find but one clear, documented case -- let alone dozens -- is a mystery that rivals Roswell and Sasquatch....

Good luck m8, though you don't really need it! Look forward to your pics, and I am sure your procedure will be exceedingly smooth -- just don't get too comfy w/ the oxy and vicodin post-op!!!

You have to click the "total crown renewal" button...the results do look extrordinarily impressive, though some of the angles are suspicious, which makes the "unreal results" kinda questionable to me. Certaintly enticing, though....

I think you're referencing DUPA/diffuse unpatterned alopecia. This type of loss renders a HT much less optimal; in contrast, the link posted and most if not all "diffuse" HT cases you see are of a diffuse pattern.

Sweet! 4500, and even 4k, is a good chunk of change, and in Cooley's hands can go a long, long way. May your laxity and density be strong -- either way, you're taking a great step forward. Look forward to the pics!

Looks great! As said, this should be a real beaut!

http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/showthread.php?t=144106 Pretty exemplary case of a "diffuse thinner" at an extreme where native hair would be at risk. Somewhere in that thread (I'm pretty sure) it was stated that permanent shockloss of hairs was not a concern. I have seen this stated by other clinics, as well. In the recent SMG case posted, however, Janna seemed to take a more cautious position towards "diffuse thinners". It is a rather relative phrase, too; the link I posted is a "diffuse thinner", but so am I, though, my diffusion comes at a much more egregious rate, making my risk of ruin much less. That said, I recall asking Dr. Feller about the chances of what native hair I had being shocked to death and the response was reassuring.

Any pics, preferably clear and detailed ones? Your post comes across suspicious to me, and I am sure others: Promotional -- check Not a single pic referenced -- check Doctor w/ poor patient rep -- check Sudden appearance -- check 2 posts to the name -- check

Very nice! All those hairs got put to good use, indeed!

Not sure if there is a truly crystallized consencus, insofar as there is a % of effect disparity between EOD and ED.....that said, quite a few (reputable) docs greenlight taking it EOD and many people take fin EOD and have done well w/ it. The consensus I came to was that ED is optimal, but EOD is still effective and certaintly the optimal route to go if "side-effects" come into play.